711.61/547
Statement by the Secretary of State66
In connection with the protest lodged by Ambassador Bullitt against the violation by the Soviet Government of its pledge of November 16, 1933, with regard to non-interference in the internal affairs of the United States and the reply of the Soviet Government thereto, the Secretary of State today67 made the following statement:
The recent note of this Government to the Government of the Soviet Union and the reply of that Government raises the issue whether that Government, in disregard of an express agreement entered into at the time of recognition in 1933, will permit organizations or groups operating on its territory to plan and direct movements contemplating the overthrow of the political or social order of the United States. For sixteen years this Government withheld recognition—as did many other Governments—mainly for the reason that the Soviet Government had failed to respect the right of this nation to maintain its own political and social order without interference by organizations conducting in or from Soviet territory activities directed against our institutions.
In 1933 this Government, observing the serious effects upon peace and prosperity of the many partial or dislocated international relationships throughout the world, took up anew the question whether the United States and the Soviet Union, two of the largest nations, could not find a way to establish more natural and normal relations, which would afford a basis for genuine friendship and collaboration to promote peace and improve material conditions both at home and abroad. After various stipulations in writing had first been carefully drafted and agreed upon by representatives of the two Governments, recognition was accorded to the Government of the Soviet Union by this Government, in November, 1933. One of the most important provisions of the agreement thus reached was the pledge of the Soviet Government [Page 258] to respect the right of the United States “to order its own life within its own jurisdiction in its own way and to refrain from interfering in any manner in the internal affairs of the United States, its territories or possessions.” The essence of this pledge was the obligation assumed by the Soviet Government not to permit persons or groups on its territory to engage in efforts or movements directed towards the overthrow of our institutions. The representative of the Soviet Government declared in writing that
“coincident with the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two Governments it will be the fixed policy of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: …
4. Not to permit the formation or residence on its territory of any organization or group—and to prevent the activity on its territory of any organization or group, or of representatives or officials of any organization or group—which has as an aim the overthrow or the preparation for the overthrow of, or the bringing about by force of a change in, the political or social order of the whole or any part of the United States, its territories or possessions.”
The language of the above-quoted paragraph irrefutably covers activities of the Communist International, which was then, and still is, the outstanding world communist organization, with headquarters at Moscow.
In its reply of August 27, 1935, to this Government’s note of August 25, 1935, the Soviet Government almost in so many words repudiates the pledge which it gave at the time of recognition that “it will be the fixed policy of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics … not to permit … and to prevent” the very activities against which this Government has complained and protested. Not for a moment denying or questioning the fact of Communist International activities on Soviet territory involving interference in the internal affairs of the United States, the Soviet Government denies having made any promise “not to permit … and to prevent” such activities of that organization on Soviet territory, asserting that it “has not taken upon itself obligations of any kind with regard to the Communist International.” That the language of the pledge, as set out above, is absolutely clear and in no way ambiguous and that there has been a clean-cut disregard and disavowal of the pledge by the Soviet Government is obvious.
The American Government, having previously made oral complaints of failure by the Soviet Government to carry out its pledge and being deeply concerned over the growing instability of international relations and the dangerous consequences thereof to peace and economic recovery, sought most earnestly in its note of August 25 to impress upon the Soviet Government the sanctity of its pledge to the end that there might be between the two nations continued development of friendly and official relations and valuable collaboration in many beneficial ways. When in its reply the Soviet Government indicated an intention entirely to disregard its promise “to prevent” such activities as those complained of it struck a severe blow at the fabric of friendly relations between the two countries.
[Page 259]To summarize, in view of the plain language of the pledge, it is not possible for the Soviet Government to disclaim its obligation to prevent activities on its territory directed toward overthrowing the political or social order in the United States. And that Government does not and cannot disclaim responsibility on the ground of inability to carry out the pledge, for its authority within its territorial limits is supreme and its power to control the acts and utterances of organizations and individuals within those limits is absolute.
It remains to be seen to what extent the intention indicated by the Soviet Government’s reply, which is directly contrary to “the fixed policy” declared in its pledge, will be carried into effect. If the Soviet Government pursues a policy of permitting activities on its territory involving interference in the internal affairs of the United States, instead of “preventing” such activities, as its written pledge provides, the friendly and official relations between the two countries cannot but be seriously impaired. Whether such relations between these two great countries are thus unfortunately to be impaired and cooperative opportunities for vast good to be destroyed, will depend upon the attitude and action of the Soviet Government.